Terry Smith: Why We Have, and Should Keep, the 17th Amendment
[Terry Smith, who has been published extensively on the history of the 17th Amendment, is a distinguished research professor at the DePaul University College of Law.]
The emergence of the so-called tea party as a political force in American politics has shed light on some of the paradigm-shifting ideas of the political right. One proposal heavily touted by some tea partyers but receiving far less media coverage than others is the repeal of the 17th Amendment, which The Times wrote about in an Oct. 21 editorial. That 1913 constitutional provision displaced state legislatures in the selection of U.S. senators and gave citizens the right to directly elect their representatives in the upper house of Congress. Tea party-backed Senate candidates have embraced the idea of repeal to varying degrees. For example, Ken Buck of Colorado has called for eventual repeal, while Mike Lee of Utah doubts the viability of repeal efforts but laments the harm that the direct election of senators has inflicted on states' rights.
That an ostensibly populist movement like the tea party would so openly disdain a populist constitutional amendment is itself a noteworthy contradiction. But the repeal idea also reflects a common misconception of the Senate as a representative of the states as well as a misunderstanding of the true reason for the 17th Amendment's existence.
The legislative appointment of senators that preceded the 17th Amendment was not uniformly or even primarily viewed as a means of protecting states' rights in the national government. First, as framers such as James Madison pointed out at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787, it was the undue solicitude of state legislatures to popular will that precipitated the effort to form the national government. The appointment of senators by these same legislatures would likewise reflect the sovereignty of the people, not abstract states' rights....
Read entire article at LA Times
The emergence of the so-called tea party as a political force in American politics has shed light on some of the paradigm-shifting ideas of the political right. One proposal heavily touted by some tea partyers but receiving far less media coverage than others is the repeal of the 17th Amendment, which The Times wrote about in an Oct. 21 editorial. That 1913 constitutional provision displaced state legislatures in the selection of U.S. senators and gave citizens the right to directly elect their representatives in the upper house of Congress. Tea party-backed Senate candidates have embraced the idea of repeal to varying degrees. For example, Ken Buck of Colorado has called for eventual repeal, while Mike Lee of Utah doubts the viability of repeal efforts but laments the harm that the direct election of senators has inflicted on states' rights.
That an ostensibly populist movement like the tea party would so openly disdain a populist constitutional amendment is itself a noteworthy contradiction. But the repeal idea also reflects a common misconception of the Senate as a representative of the states as well as a misunderstanding of the true reason for the 17th Amendment's existence.
The legislative appointment of senators that preceded the 17th Amendment was not uniformly or even primarily viewed as a means of protecting states' rights in the national government. First, as framers such as James Madison pointed out at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787, it was the undue solicitude of state legislatures to popular will that precipitated the effort to form the national government. The appointment of senators by these same legislatures would likewise reflect the sovereignty of the people, not abstract states' rights....